Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Chris_Halkides]

two out of three is not good

Why? They thought they had a solid witness with AK.

Keep in mind that when AK became a suspect, it wasn't necessarily in the mind of the investigators that she was directly involved in the murder. Perhaps they figured she was merely present in the house and did nothing to stop Lumumba. Or that she was as guilty as he and simply trying to pin the blame on him.

Whichever, they figured that she and Lumumba were both involved, and since both were in custody - the case was nearly closed. In fact, it was.

They had at least 2 of the 3 murderers behind bars

The investigators obviously did not believe everything Amanda was telling them, or they would not have arrested her. At this point in the case, they had not even identified the only person who can objectively be shown to have had sexual contact with Ms. Kercher, let alone arrested him. We will have to agree to disagree on the meaning of “substantially.”

The problem of taking the word of a single, uncorroborated witness is nicely illustrated by the Duke lacrosse case. The complaining witness identified three individuals, one of whom would give the average Eagle Scout a run for his money, and “gentle” is an adjective often used to describe another. The complaining witness proved spectacularly unreliable, but not before each of the three families had spent an estimated $1-2 million in legal fees and had been subjected to devastating reputational harm.

Chris

 

[HumanityBlues]

Fulcanelli wrote: "Well first of all, this is all about facts and law, not faith. Second of all, 'if' the police recorded anything, they are only allowed, under Italian law, to use those recordings for their own records and their investigation. They cannot be presented in court and defence teams do not have any legal right to them. The Italian legal system is based on texts, written data, not media."

That's pretty messed up.

(Sorry, tried to cut the quote but don't know how to format)

 

[Fiona]

http://66.102.9.132/search?q=cache:...pects+be+used+in+uk+courts&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk

This is interesting I think

 

[Fiona]

Fulcanelli wrote: "Well first of all, this is all about facts and law, not faith. Second of all, 'if' the police recorded anything, they are only allowed, under Italian law, to use those recordings for their own records and their investigation. They cannot be presented in court and defence teams do not have any legal right to them. The Italian legal system is based on texts, written data, not media."

That's pretty messed up.

(Sorry, tried to cut the quote but don't know how to format)

Why do you think it is messed up? The situation in the UK is different but it is not normal practice to play tapes in court. Interviews with witnesses are not recorded here. Interviews with suspects are recorded. The police then make a "record" of the interview. That is more detailed in complex cases but it is not verbatim. Certain aspects of it are

From the guidance issued to prosecutors by the CPS

The record of interview in a complex case should contain not only admissions but also the main salient points verbatim. The main salient points include questions and answers about intent, dishonesty or possible defences etc.

* You should listen to the tape before committal if:

* The record of interview appears to be inadequate;

* The record of interview is the only cogent evidence and the case is serious and complex.

* The tape is believed to contain 'sensitive' material; or

* The record of interview is being challenged by the defence.

If you decide to play a tape in court as part of the prosecution case you should notify the court and the defence. The defence should be supplied with a copy of the tape if they have not already asked for one. If the defence object to any part of the tape being played, and it is not possible to reach agreement, the court should be asked to decide on the admissibility of the disputed parts of the tape.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/tape_recorded_interviews/

 

[BobTheDonkey]

The investigators obviously did not believe everything Amanda was telling them, or they would not have arrested her. At this point in the case, they had not even identified the only person who can objectively be shown to have had sexual contact with Ms. Kercher, let alone arrested him. We will have to agree to disagree on the meaning of “substantially.”

The problem of taking the word of a single, uncorroborated witness is nicely illustrated by the Duke lacrosse case. The complaining witness identified three individuals, one of whom would give the average Eagle Scout a run for his money, and “gentle” is an adjective often used to describe another. The complaining witness proved spectacularly unreliable, but not before each of the three families had spent an estimated $1-2 million in legal fees and had been subjected to devastating reputational harm.

Chris

So...it's all or nothing in your world? Right, gotcha.

 

[Fiona]

The investigators obviously did not believe everything Amanda was telling them, or they would not have arrested her.

On the contrary: they would have to arrest her if they believed her because under Italian law she was at the scene and complicit at best

At this point in the case, they had not even identified the only person who can objectively be shown to have had sexual contact with Ms. Kercher, let alone arrested him. We will have to agree to disagree on the meaning of “substantially.”

Since there was not at that stage evidence to confirm a sexual element why would that be relevant? It was Knox who introduced that

The problem of taking the word of a single, uncorroborated witness is <snip>
Chris

pale in comparison to taking no action to protect the public from a murderer who is on the loose. Is it really the case that in America they would not have detained Lumumba in similar circumstances? I find that quite odd

 

[Dan O.]

What else would it be showing?

You are the one making the claim that the "Faked blood in the bathroom" photo is showing real blood. You should be supporting your claim. Instead, we are left with yet another unsupported allegation.


What you fail to show is evidence that the photo in question was taken inside of the critical 30 second window before the reagent changes color on its own due to oxidation in the atmosphere. (Kastle-Meyer test^WP)

It would be highly unlikely that the investigators would host down the whole bathroom with the reagent at one time and snap a single picture. This would not provide them with the details of the margins of the blood stains they would need for further analysis. They would instead progress from one area to the next spraying just the area that would be in the detailed photo they intend to take to document the stains.

By the time the finished processing the room, everywhere they tested would have turned red. The final photo they take of the whole room would only be to show if the room was disturbed in the interval before their next return visit.

This final photo should never have been released to the press because it shows neither how the room looked when Amanda took her shower that morning nor the true extent of the blood stains in the room. This photo is a lie, it was released to the press as a lie and anyone who continues to portray it as showing the presence of blood is a bloody liar.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

This photo is a lie, it was released to the press as a lie and anyone who continues to portray it as showing the presence of blood is a bloody liar.

Speaking of lies...

Wasn't it just the last page where you posted that the DNA profiles on the bra clasp were inconclusive, leaving at a minimum the impression that all 5 profiles were inconclusive when, in fact, Sollecito and Meredith's DNA profiles were readily identified on the clasp?

But who's counting the dishonest posts...

 

[Dan O.]

I thought you guys believed Rudy had magic all sorts...that enabled him to climb up and enter a nearly impossible window without being seen, heard or leaving a trace. Rudy, who can magically search and toss rooms without leaving a trace, even though he was covered in blood. Rudy who can move and undress a body hours after death without even being in the cottage...the list could go on.

Your imaginary list can go on forever but it still has no barring on reality. We don't know at this time if Rudy or anyone entered through the broken window. A detailed forensic analysis would be able to make that determination but all we have to go on is a couple of pictures as everything else has been swept aside because it doesn't fit Mignini's vision. There is no clock establishing the time the room was tossed so you don't know if it happened before or after the assault. But we still have magic fingers Rudy who can digitally penetrate Meredith without leaving a DNA trace on her pants unless he took the pants off her first.

In any case, 'magic fingers' weren't required. He was holding Meredith's arm with one hand while assaulting her with the other. Meanwhile, Raffaele was holding the other arm and Amanda was keeping her under control while threatening her with a knife.

You are still leaving out inconvenient facts like who beat the crap out of Rudy. Do you think it was the bushy haired stranger? It's in Rudy's own statement made before he ever meets Giuliano Mignini and his band of flying squirrels that rudy claims being felled twice by his assailant. Why would he claim this if it wasn't to explain the obvious tracks that he expects to be found?

But anyway, you raise a valid point...Rudy would have certainly needed to have had magical fingers if he was a lone wolf attacker, since those fingers would have had to have been restraining her, threatening her with a knife and sexually assaulting her at the same time. Therefore, you yourself have highlighted why this had to be a crime carried out by multiple attackers.

You simply fail to consider that the events happened on some timeline. Just because all the evidence of Meredith's assault existed at the simultaneous point in the future when the body was examined doesn't mean that they all were created at the same point in time. Each of the marks on Meredith's body could have been caused sequentially in the fight for her life against a lone attacker. If we had more details we could piece together likely sequences to account for the evidence. But we would never be able to pull a Mignini and say exactly what happened because there is insufficient evidence.

That's because they didn't carry out the actual sexual assault, Rudy did. As for the clothes, perhaps you've forgotten the bra clasp already.

Ah, yes. The famous bra clasp... Why did the detectives forget it when they were collecting evidence the first time? Why was it visibly changed when they eventually recovered it?

She wouldn't have been able to beat anybody uf she was being restrained by three people, as was the case.

Yep, that's where your scenario fails.

 

[Dan O.]

Now, I'm a bit confused. I must have missed where it was established that it was a staged rape scene, as opposed to a true rape. I was under the impression that the sexual assault had happened shortly before (and/or during) the murder.

Is this another of your "ignore all evidence I don't like" scenarios or did I miss this part of the forensics results?

Yes, you missed it. The "Staged rape" is one of Mignini's babies.

 

[stilicho]

Yes, you missed it. The "Staged rape" is one of Mignini's babies.

Mignini didn't move Meredith's body. RS and/or AK did. We know that because of their own testimony and the lack of transfer blood on the quilt. We know the scene was staged by RS, at the very least, because of his DNA on the bra clasp.

The sexual assault was very real, though, and the three involved are serving time for committing it.

We don't know at this time if Rudy or anyone entered through the broken window.

We know that nobody entered through the broken window. There was no evidence that anybody did so.

Each of the marks on Meredith's body could have been caused sequentially in the fight for her life against a lone attacker.

Were you the coroner? Or is the medical examiner in on this grand conspiracy of yours? The defence experts tried your gambit and failed. They couldn't even agree with each other on how this was accomplished.

 

[Kestrel]

This final photo should never have been released to the press because it shows neither how the room looked when Amanda took her shower that morning nor the true extent of the blood stains in the room. This photo is a lie, it was released to the press as a lie and anyone who continues to portray it as showing the presence of blood is a bloody liar.

The problem is that for every person like you who recognizes what the photo actually shows, there are thousands that will only see a bathroom awash with blood.

 

[stilicho]

The problem is that for every person like you who recognizes what the photo actually shows, there are thousands that will only see a bathroom awash with blood.

How fortunate for us that the jurors weren't among these imaginary thousands of easily fooled people.

 

[Dan O.]

Speaking of lies...

Wasn't it just the last page where you posted that the DNA profiles on the bra clasp were inconclusive, leaving at a minimum the impression that all 5 profiles were inconclusive when, in fact, Sollecito and Meredith's DNA profiles were readily identified on the clasp?

But who's counting the dishonest posts...

Speaking of the bra hook...

I am really surprised that Fiona hasn't yet questioned how someone's DNA ends up on the hook of a latched bra without getting on the rest of the strap.

For those who are challenged with a "Y" chromosome, you can see the standard construction of the "hook and eye" clasp here: http://www.aliexpress.com/product-gs/270131034-bra-hook-and-eye-wholesalers.html

When the bra is fastened, the hook is embedded between the layers and is completely inaccessible. This isn't something done explicitly to frustrate guys but is simply a practical matter to keep the hooks from imbedding in the wearers skin or snagging her clothing.


And if you didn't know that, you probably also don't know this:

NSFW - Exposed Epidermis

http://www.5min.com/Video/How-to-remove-a-bra-2950

 

[Dan O.]

How fortunate for us that the jurors weren't among these imaginary thousands of easily fooled people.

Was the "Fake bloody bathroom" photo shown in court?

 

[stilicho]

Was the "Fake bloody bathroom" photo shown in court?

Non sequitur.

How are you and Kestrel trying to explain that photo? What the media did with it has no bearing on the trial.

I am really surprised that Fiona hasn't yet questioned how someone's DNA ends up on the hook of a latched bra without getting on the rest of the strap.

Argument from incredulity.

Regardless of where evidence of RS showed up at the crimescene, you'd find it impossible to believe it wasn't also found somewhere else. This is what I mean when I suggest that you'd never convict anyone of a crime, anywhere, because sufficient evidence would be thrown out unless more--always more--was also found.

This is a turtles-upon-turtles approach to investigation and (I think) you know it. Regardless of the mountains of evidence against RS and AK, you suggest it's simply "this much" short.

Even the defence teams weren't that stubborn and naive, Dan O. Why are you? What is your angle?

 

[katy_did]

Well first of all, this is all about facts and law, not faith. Second of all, 'if' the police recorded anything, they are only allowed, under Italian law, to use those recordings for their own records and their investigation. They cannot be presented in court and defence teams do not have any legal right to them. The Italian legal system is based on texts, written data, not media.

Do you have a link showing that it's illegal for the police to release the recordings of interviews? I'm just a little surprised at that, given the fact they leaked selected quotes from the interrogation which would also, presumably, be illegal. Or is leaking selective information to prejudice the jury against a suspect OK, just not releasing the full context of the leaked remarks?

Review their testimony on PMF, it's all preserved there. Simply go back in the main discussion to the dates they testified.

So your source is basically posts on a forum? Regardless, I just went through and searched for all references to 'Meredith scream' and found nothing about what the police said as to how 'the scream' was introduced. I also searched for all references to Anna Donnino, the police translator, and again there's no transcript of what she said, nor any mention of 'the scream'. Most of the sources on the PMF forum appear to be news articles; perhaps you could link me to one of them, rather than to thousands of pages of forum posts?

Well, you'd think that from the testimony from 7 different individuals, at least something would support her version of events. It doesn't. Neither did the investigation by the magistrate. But it seems to me, the basis of your argument is that because it's impossible for her to prove it, we should believe her. Some would term that as a sympathy shag. You don't get those when you're accused of a violent sex murder. But, it's not even about proof. Just some evidence would be nice, something aside from just her word. A word which, let's face it, doesn't mean very much.

It seems that the basis for your argument is to believe implicitly in everything the police claim (despite their being proven liars) and disbelieve absolutely everything Knox says, except when it suits you to selectively believe. I'm not quite sure what kind of metaphorical shag that would be. The police are the ones with the evidence to prove or disprove what Amanda says, yet they have consistently refused to do either. Amanda clearly cannot provide any evidence beyond her word, unless she recorded the interview herself.

However, there is clear evidence in the statement itself that 'the scream' was suggested to her. Amanda says she DIDN'T hear Meredith scream, because she had her hands over her ears. Writing of the 'confession', Judge Matteini says, "specifying that in those moments she could not attest to hearing Meredith scream insofar as she was so frightened she blocked her ears, imagining what could have been happening". So in Amanda's 'confession', she says she can't testify to Meredith screaming, because she had her hands over her ears and couldn't hear. So why did she mention screaming? Because the police asked her why she didn't hear screaming. The statement she made on the night of the interrogation is completely consistent with her later claim that the scream was suggested to her.

 

[katy_did]

Amanda didn't use the word 'stuffed'.

No, you're quite right; what she said was:

So Raffaele asked certain people, for me, to explain what they had seen, and we heard that there was a corpse in the closet, covered with a cover, with one foot out, and that's the image I understood, that there was a corpse in the closet, shut inside the closet, but there was a foot sticking out.

It's still rather different from 'the body was in front of the closet' though, isn't it?

 

[katy_did]

For those who are challenged with a "Y" chromosome, you can see the standard construction of the "hook and eye" clasp here:

When the bra is fastened, the hook is embedded between the layers and is completely inaccessible. This isn't something done explicitly to frustrate guys but is simply a practical matter to keep the hooks from imbedding in the wearers skin or snagging her clothing.

I had considered exactly the same thing, Dan (being female, perhaps it came more naturally to me!). The hook on which Sollecito's DNA was found would have been completely covered by the clasp itself, so it would be highly unlikely for someone's DNA to end up on it in the process of cutting it.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I had considered exactly the same thing, Dan (being female, perhaps it came more naturally to me!). The hook on which Sollecito's DNA was found would have been completely covered by the clasp itself, so it would be highly unlikely for someone's DNA to end up on it in the process of cutting it.

...and yet his DNA was found nowhere else in the room. So where did the "contamination" come from?

This is not the first time I've asked this question, and I've yet to see a plausible response. Perhaps you can do better?

Of course, if you really want to delve into this...since the metal was hidden as Dan O postulates, isn't it therefore less likely that the DNA came from contamination vs direct physical contact? If the metal of the clasp was covered while the clasp was on the floor, the DNA must be like a heat-seeking missile even more-so. The DNA had to not only land on nothing else in the room, but had to also avoid landing anywhere else on the clasp, and yet manage to navigate itself directly to the hidden clasp after traveling all the way from the cigarette butt in the kitchen.

Realistically, when the clasp was grasped by Sollecito so he could cut it off, it's not hard to imagine that his fingers rubbed against the metal of the clasp. Or perhaps when he moved the body, he grasped the bra strap at the clasp and managed to rub his finger against the metal. Anyone that's ever grasped a bra clasp can assure you that touching the metal isn't as difficult as Dan O makes it out to be...